Previous Post
Next Post


Many readers are, I’m sure, familiar with the Tuelller Drill. In 1983, police officer Dennis Tueller conducted research that revealed that an assailant armed with a knife can close 21 feet and inflict deadly wounds on a police officer before he can draw, fire, and hope to stop an attacker.

It might seem counterintuitive to some — particularly if they reflexively consider the Second Amendment a menace — but this knowledge absolutely refutes one of the fundamental tenets of gun control ideology: without guns, violence would be greatly reduced or even eliminated. Some even go so far with their anti-liberty desires as to suggest that if there were no guns, there would be no gunshot deaths.

If all firearms could magically be made to vanish, this would likely be true, but absent such magic, there is no doubt that only the law-abiding would or could ever be disarmed. Only criminals and governments would retain firearms, and history reveals gunshot deaths would continue. Only the people doing the shooting would change.

Governments with a monopoly on lethal force inevitably use it against their citizens, as there’s nothing to restrain their worst impulses. And of course, criminals always are and always will be as armed as they please.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us consider what a world without firearms would really be like. Would violence really be substantially reduced?

Gunpowder was invented in China around 850 AD. Prior to that, and for some time thereafter, firearms weren’t possible; none existed. The first recorded use of a handgun-like weapon was probably in the 1360s, and matchlocks did not become somewhat common until the 1400s. Even though long guns were available in the 1400s, the British did not immediately adopt them for war, preferring the longbow, which was generally more accurate and reliable and could fire far more projectiles in a given period of time. It would take the invention of more reliable lockwork and rifled barrels before firearms became truly useful and popular. This did not, however, in any way lessen the bloodshed in war and otherwise.

At the battle of Marathon in 490 BC, as many as 6600 were killed within five days using weapons no more modern than spears and swords. At the battle of Actium in 31 BC, using the same kinds of weapons, as many as 7500 were killed in a single day. At the Battle of Hastings in 1066 AD, as many as 6000 died in a day. At the battle of Agincourt in 1415 between 7100 and 10,500 died. All of these men were killed and wounded without the use of firearms. Their most advanced personal projectile weapons were bows, but edged and blunt trauma producing weapons accounted for much of the casualty total.

It takes only seconds and an Internet connection to find thousands of people contemporarily killed or wounded with knives, but to extend the argument just a bit further, consider these cases of damage caused by people wielding swords, only a few found with a very brief and casual Google search.

2010: Cheyenne, Wyoming

“A 21-year-old Cheyenne man who robbed a local convenience store with a samurai sword in January was sentenced to probation Thursday.

Jeremy P. Stinger pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon Sept. 30…

Stinger entered the Kum-N-Go on East Lincolnway, pulled a sword from his long coat and demanded money from the teller.  After handing Stinger the money from the register, the clerk, Brandon Glicco, attempted to thwart Stinger’s escape inside the store.  Glicco’s hand was injured during the altercation when Stinger swung the sword at him before leaving, according to court documents.”

2011: Pittsburg, Pennsylvania

“U.S. police are investigating a mysterious crime wave in Pittsburgh of offences carried out by ninjas.

The spate of crimes continued after a sword-wielding ninja smashed 11 cars in the city before attempted to stab a man who confronted him, according to police.

Residents in the South Union Township area of the city said they heard glass breaking and found a ninja hiding in a yard.

The unknown ninja offender then cut one man in the hand as he made his escape.”

2014: DeKalb, Georgia

“Police say they found samurai swords in a search of the home Thursday where a 73-year-old woman and her 75-year-old husband were stabbed to death.

Police say the swords were used to kill the couple in what DeKalb County Police Chief Cedric Alexander described as a “horrific scene” inside the suburban Atlanta home. The bodies were found inside the bedroom by a relative who visited their house Thursday afternoon.

Police spokeswoman Mekka Parish says the couple’s 39-year-old son was identified as a suspect and was found at a nearby park less than two hours after his parents’ deaths were reported.”

2015: West Hartford, Connecticut

“A husband and wife have been stabbed with a sword in a domestic dispute at a Connecticut water pipe smoking lounge.

Police identify the injured couple as George Ayoub and Najeh Frehi.

Ayoub owns the 1001 Arabian Nights Hookah Lounge in West Hartford, where he was found early Wednesday with stab wounds…

Police say they received a 911 call from Ayoub at about 3:15 Wednesday morning. He told dispatchers his wife stabbed him.

Police say a sword was found at the scene.

Police Capt. Donald Melanson says authorities don’t know who the aggressor was but describe the stabbing as domestic violence.”

Edged weapons—swords–may also be used in self-defense:

“2009: A Johns Hopkins University student armed with a samurai sword killed a suspected burglar in a garage behind his off-campus home early Tuesday, hours after someone broke in and stole electronics.

Some shocked neighbors said they heard bloodcurdling screams in an area just blocks from the university. Police held the student, a junior chemistry major who turns 21 on Sunday, for several hours, but no charges were filed by early afternoon, said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

Around 1:20 a.m., the student heard noises behind the home and noticed a door to the garage was open, Guglielmi said. He grabbed the sword and confronted the intruder — identified by police as Donald D. Rice, 49, a habitual offender who had just been released from jail.

Rice was crouching beneath a counter, police said. The student asked him what he was doing and threatened to call police.

‘When he said that, the suspect lunged at him, kind of forced the kid against the wall, and he struck him with the sword,’ Guglielmi said.

Rice’s left hand was nearly severed — Guglielmi described it as ‘hanging on by a thread’ — and he suffered a severe cut to the upper body. He died at the scene.”

The wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan have taught many lessons, but one is particularly applicable to this issue: even essentially medieval craftsmen can produce modern firearms. Afghan craftsmen, with minimal tools and resources, can and do build functional AK pattern rifles.

Consider this passage from a 1922 book regarding Afghan gun makers:

“The villages of the pass are famed for a strange industry — the manufacture entirely by hand of rifles and ammunitions, especially rifles, to the eye so like the products of European arsenals as to deceive all but experts. For these, since they are comparatively cheap and serviceable, there is a ready sale all along the border.”

Fast forward to 2012:

“We met a local gunsmith, Farid Shah from Zarghoon Khel, Darra. This man has a workshop set inside his small shop and has a single helper. ‘I produce Kalashinkov (AK-47) rifles and 12 gauge shotgun rifles in the Kalashinkov design,’ said Farid Shah.

Replying to a question about the quality of his guns, he simply said that his guns were no match for the Russian, Chinese or Pakistani guns produced in Wah Ordnance Factories.

‘A gun made manually from ordinary steel manually cannot match a gun produced in a well equipped factory from weapon grade steel using computerised machines,’ claimed Farid, adding that his guns were bulky and since there is no standardisation in the workshops, it is not possible to replace parts.

Hence, if something goes wrong the entire gun has to be thrown away.

‘This gun costs Rs12,000 a piece and takes 10 days to complete. But we cannot produce quality automatic weapons. Locals know it that is why no one would buy a Darra made AK-47 rifle in Peshawar or the rest of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P).”

Even with these drawbacks—by western standards—there is a real market for these guns.

Firearm technology is ubiquitous. Even if all guns could magically disappear, it would take little material and time to produce new and fully functional guns. It would take less time and materiel to produce swords. The armament genie is out of the bottle and has been for centuries.

As it has been since 490 BC, it is not the weapon that kills, but the human being that decides to use it for evil. Gun control is always an attempt to harness human nature. Because it is invariably focused on depriving the honest and law-abiding of the means of self-defense, it has never worked; it cannot work.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’ve been asked the question before, “If you could go back in time and ‘un-invent’ the firearm, would you?” I normally respond with the fact that it was the advent of firearms, which allowed a barely-trained commoner to take down a trained soldier on horseback, that finally sounded the death knell of the feudalist system in much of Europe. The firearm made possible the idea of the citizen-soldier, without which the United States would not exist.

  2. Othe only upside to no guns is that Sword fights are badass and thats what would happen again

    • That is only in the movies. In my youth, I spent time learning how people used the sword for self defense during the renaissance. If you were a spectator to one of those sword fights, you would likely see a lot of posturing at 20 feet or more, and then less than a minute of sword play before someone was injured or dead.

    • You raped my sister, you killed her children, you raped my sister, you killed her children!

      Ow my eyeballs.

    • You know, I’ve always maintaned that Japan- contrary to popular belief -is the perfect example of an armed society being a polite society. Now granted, the ones that were armed were Samurai nobility with a birthright liscense to kill for nearly any reason they deemed fit, such as testing their blades on the local peasantry, but their near universal ability to excersize their armed rights in accordance to the demands of honor turned Japan into one of the politest nations on the planet… To the point where they go out of their way to find other ways to say no just to avoid saying no.

      It’s not because they are an inherantly polite people. It’s because causing any percieved offense was a good way to lose your head. For hundreds of years. You quite literally do not have to play thought experiments here since the control environment already existed. Certainly there are curtual modifiers in play that allowed this fuedal state to continue without major peasant uprising, but the premise has already been successfully demonstrated–

      When you can get killed at the drop of a hat, politeness happens.

  3. It’s still too soon to mention the Battle of Hastings. I’m very grumpy about the Normans.

        • Happy to oblige 😀

          I’m actually reading a (old) book on the history of the Vikings and am just about to get to the Norman Invasion. Right now, Alfred is kicking the crap out of the Danes in Mercia and Wessex.

          Also, the TV show Vikings is awesome! if not entirely historically accurate (Charles the BALD)

  4. Pfht. Humans make weapons. That’s kind of what they do. Some of the earliest recovered archeological remains of humans had spear marks on their skeletons. Let’s say Obama finally gets that gun magnet working then we’ll just start using different weapons. Probably copies of the Girandoni Air Rifle

  5. You know what? Everybody dies. Might as well live by the sword then. At least you’ll die with dignity if the saying holds true.

    • “And dying in your beds, many years from now… Would be willing to trade, all the days from this day to that, to come back here and tell our enemies: that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take OUR FREEDOM!!!!”
      Still gets me everytime.

  6. I have Gun Digests going back to the 1970’s. In (IIRC) the 1980 edition, there is an article about the Darra gun makers. So-called “Khyber Pass guns” may be crude, but they are serviceable, and while their A-K’s may be bad, they have for years turned out serviceable (if a bit crude) copies of the British SMLE bolt-action. The article went on to say that, when issue ammo was scarce, they made their own nitrocellulose powder from shredded movie film for reloading their brass!

  7. Pre-Brady Throwing knives, a permitting process lengthy and exhaustive to buy axes, garden tools, and of course, evil blue handled Estwing Hammers, along with Ginsu, and other Louisville Slugger sports implements would be someone like Shannon Watts crying for more Universal Background Checks to purchase a garden hoe.

    And OMG hydraulic log splitters would be subject to the equivalent of a Class 3 licensing procedure.

    Sorry, I need to feed my unicorn right now. She gets testy when I’m late.

    • This is an obvious one the article missed.

      “During the approximate 100-day period from April 7, 1994, to mid-July, an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed, constituting as much as 20% of the country’s total population and 70% of the Tutsi then living in Rwanda.”

      Most of the killing was done with machetes.

  8. But how meny children (infants, toddlers, not teenagers) were accidentally killed or injured by swords?

    That will be the arguement.

    • And it will still be an ignorant argument…
      There are tons of things that accidentally kill more kids than guns or knives do and people are more than willing to put up with those things in their society based on a simple risk/reward analysis.
      The argument loses all integrity if it cannot be equally applied to any object.

      • The mayhem people are willing to justify using risk/reward is borderline insane, in many cases. But using probability of event (risk) of an accidental death by sword, the antis would be statistically on good ground. and if having all guns disappear would save even one child….Afraid the gun/no-gun dispute will continue until one side is completely eliminated. And although general stats indicate most Americans do not favor gun control legislation, the people who pass laws will always appeal to the most vocal who promise a win in the next election.

        And now the NRA is being bottled-up with investigations into election law violations (Tom Swift). We are seeing the best 2A advocate diminished in power.

        • Not sure what mayhem you’re referring to. If you’ve actually evaluated the risk/reward ratio of something and your analysis supports mayhem then you’re not doing it right.
          Antis lose their minds when you use a car in a gun analogy… In my other reply in this thread, I equate teenage drivers to brandishing a firearm in a crowd. The flip side to that is that a holstered gun carried in public is the equivalent of a car parked in a garage waiting to only be used in a real emergency rather than so you can hang out with your BFF at the food court..
          The reward of guns isn’t some unseeable thing that has to be looked at from a particular angle to be distinguished from mayhem. Nor does every person have to be won over to one side or the other. There have always been people that choose not to use weapons to protect themselves. It has only recently, history-wise, become so popular to demonize those that choose to.

          • Thinking about all the other sources of child death that are acceptable risks:
            – swimming pools
            – plastic laundry bags,
            – automobiles
            – and all the other things people think are OK to risk because….
            the risk is really, really low, and I need to….

            • Completely agree. I wouldn’t consider those as “mayhem” though. Anything is going to accidentally kill you sooner or later. Even if you never leave your house, the confinement itself would probably kill you sooner than later…
              But, yes. In all the things you listed, and many more, these nutjobs are able to grasp the concept of “acceptable deaths”.
              From a story this week: Toddler finds gun and shoots himself in the face. OMG! BAN ALL GUNS!!!
              Toddler drowns in a pool. Meh, shit happens / bad parents.

      • There are tons of things that accidentally kill more kids than guns or knives do and people are more than willing to put up with those things in their society based on a simple risk/reward analysis.

        Maybe they are doing such an analysis… but failing to see any reward to guns. Zero vs. a small risk means, “ban it fercrissake you morons” and that’s exactly how they behave, as if we are the stupid ones for even raising this as an argument.

        • Well, yes. That’s exactly what their issue is. Not only do they not see the reward of guns they also refuse to try to see it.
          Their teenage daughter driving the SUV to the mall while txting her friends is the equivalent of a gun owner walking through a crowded mall with gun drawn, finger on the trigger, pointing it at everyone they pass. Statistically, the teenager in the car is a greater danger… But, try to tell them they have to keep driving their own kids to the mall until they’re 21; or tell them their kids have to have triple the training they already require. They’d fight tooth and nail to stop you.

  9. You picked some minor examples of what edged weapons can do:

    Even leaving aside the real doozies, here’s a particularly good one. The Battle of Arausio (, where up to 120,000 Roman troops and auxiliaries were massacred by Cimbrian invaders in 105 BC, around 950 years before gunpowder. The Germans lost 15,000. Nearly all of those deaths was the result of a bladed or blunt force weapon. For the Romans, it was the worst defeat in terms of casualties in their history, even worse than the more famous Cannae from the Second Punic War.

    Of course, the Romans found their mojo again, and went on to mow the Cimbri and their allies down. In the next battle, they killed 90,000 Teutones, losing only about 1,000, and in the decisive battle, 140,000 Cimbri, also losing only about 1,000. So in the course of three battles, that’s 367,000 people, mostly killed by hand weapons, up close and personal.

    To give that number perspective, a little less than the population of Arlington, Texas, in three battles, that were fought over the span of four years.

    • Agreed, the Roman war machine was quite efficient once they got going. I can’t remember the name of the battle, but in that rebellion led by Budica in Britain, about 5,000 Legionnaires slaughtered a force of over 100,000 Britons. The battle was actually a greater stand than Thermopolaye but didn’t gain as much notoriety.

    • “To give that number perspective”

      To give numbers even more perspective, the Nazi’s killed millions with gas enabled by a propaganda machine. Yeah, it’s clear that the fact that they had guns to enforce that propaganda in a sense made a difference too, but still, the Holocaust was not a mass murder perpetrated by firearms.

      Propaganda and culture wars can be just as dangerous as physical weapons.

      • It could be argued that the holocaust was a mass murder predicated on a lack of firearms for the victims.

      • “…Holocaust was not a mass murder perpetrated by firearms.”

        There are numerous examples of Nazis marching town citizens out of town to a freshly dug large pit and shot to death.

        The main instrument of Holocaust death? Probably not.

        I am willing to wager the total numbers are many thousands and certainly qualify as ‘mass murder perpetrated by firearms’.

        C’mon, JR. You’re better than that.

        • Come on, man, you know what I was saying. You even restated it yourself. 😉

          The Holocaust as a whole was not a mass murder with firearms as the main tool used to commit that violence.

  10. As the US Military teaches your mind is your primary weapon. And, BTW an entrenching tool is a fine killing device.

    • With a silencer, that might work! You could just sneak up on somebody, and……………………..

  11. One of the most deadly weapons ever invented has not been mentioned. The crossbow! I’m thinking of making up some of these, in miniature form, just in case!
    How about a “spring” gun. A dart compressed against a spring in a metal tube, could be anywhere from 3 or 4 inches long, to a foot or more, still concealable. Could also be made in multiple barrel form.
    They also have the advantage of being silent!

    • My daughter is into archery. She does not like cross bows, but does shoot a recurve.

      She’s deadly accurate, and the (target) bow she has is crazy powerful. As the saying goes, you couldn’t pay ME enough to stand downrange to let her take a killing shot.

      We watched a video of a historical re-enactment of a Middle Ages long bow shooter shooting THROUGH armor. It was quite impressive.

    • Gunr says:
      May 1, 2015 at 20
      “The crossbow! I’m thinking of making up some of these, in miniature form, just in case! Could also be made in multiple barrel form.”

      Ah, multiple barrels.
      There’s nothing new under the sun.
      Here’s a design idea for you…

  12. without guns, violence would be greatly reduced or eliminated

    And, yet, somehow the UK leads over the US in violent crime rate, when adjusted for regional definitions and reporting standards. By about 200 to 300 more, per 100,000 people, IIRC. Of course, GUN violence is higher in the US, but that is not the argument. Even knives are more “tightly” controlled in the UK, in that you cannot carry many types “without special reason” such as ‘machetes’ only if you are going to/coming from camping, etc.

    Of course, the antis don’t let fact get in the way of a good emotional argument.

    • It’s OK to carry a machete if you’re going to cut a soldier’s head off with it, though, right?

  13. A few unrelated comments:
    1. You missed the Chinese. I am not at all knowledgeable on the subject, but a friend of mine who is states that millions of Chinese died in the various revolutions and wars between warlords over the last 2000 years, many by edged or blunt weapons.
    2. What happens when guns disappear? We know the answer–see England. People revert to knives.
    3. Humans have no natural weaponry, such as thick hides, fangs, horns, claws, etc–so thousands of years ago they invented knives and hammers, then spears, then arrows. We don’t need no stinkin’ firearms to be deadly.
    4. Actually, producing a good sword is a labor intensive mixture of art, science, experience, and sweat. Unless you are grinding them out of rolled steel, as was practiced starting in the 1th century. A sword is not a flat piece of steel with an edge on it, but tapers in cross-section from hilt to tip, has features designed in depending on the use/ defense it will likely meet, and edges ground for the type of armor that will be encountered, if any. Compare, for example, a Civil War era saber, which is curved and primarily intended for slashing with a secondary point, to the last Patton pattern US Army saber, which is designed solely for stabbing. There are as many different styles of swords as there are firearms, no doubt.

    • “Humans have no natural weaponry”

      Au contraire. Well, you got to it, of course.

      Our truest weapon lies between our ears. The human brain is arguably the deadliest weapon the earth has ever known.

      • For maximum evidence of that fact, reconsider the photo above. For those who are unaware, the location behind the fence that sign is on is a Minuteman missile silo, housing a solid-fuel rocket capable of delivering several H-bombs with pinpoint accuracy anywhere on the globe within about 30 minutes, able to launch within seconds of receiving the order. Capable of killing millions without firing a single bullet. Thus the sign, a valid and peaceful protest.

  14. Over 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu moderates were massacred in the Rwandan Genocide, mostly with machetes. If all guns suddenly disappeared you would see nightly machete attacks on the evening news instead of shootings.

  15. It drives me nuts when I see the statement “He who lives by the sword must die by the sword” used to justify a pacifist victim mindset. Anyone who really believes that the aforementioned statement forbids armed self-defense is misguided. If you look at the structure of a violent crime, the aggressor (otherwise known as the BAD GUY) attacks the innocent party FIRST and self-defense comes later. Jesus knew this.
    If you look at the context of the statement, Jesus HAD to be taken peacefully or he would not have become the symbol he knew was necessary. Jesus was being framed as a criminal, and violence would have lent actual credence to the trumped-up charges he was facing.
    In fact, this verse could be interpreted as instructions to hunt down and destroy anyone who attacks an innocent person. This verse could also be used to justify the death penalty.
    Are these acceptable interpretation? No, because TRUE vigilante justice is wrong. But by no means does the statement “live by/die by the sword” mean that we shouldn’t defend ourselves.
    Taken with the instruction to “sell your cloak and buy a sword” and his attack at the temple, it gets pretty hard to say that Jesus was a pacifist who advocated victim-hood over self-defense.
    Abusing the Bible for political gain is pretty fun until you get called on your crap by someone who knows what’s really going on.

    • I’m pretty sure Jesus would still have been a valid historic figure if he had decimated his attackers with a few thousand well-aimed lightning bolts.

  16. Blades, entrenching tools, crow bars, tire irons, baseball bats, pointed objects, rocks, etc. are all fine self defense/killing tools, at home or away. With my luck anybody came for me would have that last remaining firearm and lots of ammo.

  17. You forgot the Battle Cannae where Hannibal put over 50,000 Roman soldiers to death in a single day without a single firearm.

    Before firearms the physically strong abused the physically weak. Now the ruthless abuse the weak minded.

  18. Mike, there is one important fact that should be mentioned.

    The first people who started massively using firearms in field warfare were the Czech Hussites in 1420 and subsequent years (that is also why pistol and howitzer are originally Czech words).

    The Hussites were essentially peasant army. Firearms were one of the main reasons that made it possible for this peasant army to successfully defeat 5 Catholic crusades with the best trained and armed knights that Europe could throw at them at the time.

    Firearms made it possible for the peasants of 15th century Czech lands to be equalized on the battlefield with the best of the sword wielding professionals the same as guns equalize anyone against a criminal today.

  19. Read The 47th Samurai to discover what a samurai sword actually does to people. Granted, it’s fictional but still, it gave me a whole new respect for a metal blade.

    And Bob Lee Swagger is one bad mofo.

  20. Because the world was so incredibly peaceful in the 10th century before any man-portable guns existed.

    No, I wouldn’t wish for a world without any guns at all. I’m not talking about a world where guns are unequivocally banned, and the bad guys would have them but we wouldn’t, I’m talking about a world where no guns at all exist. I wouldn’t wish for that world, because brute strength would rule the day. Those older weapons are no joke; knives are by no means obsolete even among guns, and a sword unopposed by guns would be formidable. But they all require brute strength or great dexterity/stamina to use well.

    Guns are indeed an equalizer; that’s their greatest attribute. And the reason I am glad they exist, not just glad I can get one because the bad guys have them, but glad they exist, period.

  21. Contemporary times are also full of examples. In Rwanda almost 1,000,000 people were killed in 3 months mostly with machetes and farming implements. One of the worst genocides in human history took place with very little use of guns on the civilian population.

  22. Mike McDaniel brings up a great point that the people who want ALL guns tbanned or at least
    ALL guns out of civilian hands ignore the thousands and thousands of years of history of man that existed before guns were invented.

    There stated argument is that if ALL guns are banned then ALL “gun violence” will be gone, when
    actually they imply that ALL violence will be gone.

    That’s why they are on the borderline of being insane.

    From what I know of recent British history that after their recent civilian gun-disarmement campaign, “gun violence” did go down obviously since there were less guns, but violence and crime in general, if anything, rose and became more brutal. This has occurred in just about country that repeated the same mistakes.

    John Lott wrote the definitive guide on this in More Guns, Less Crime.

    BTW, I got into guns after many years of martial arts training, including
    sticks, knives, and swords.

    And I can tell you that EVERYONE should learn some non-firearm self-defense
    before they even touch a gun.

    Unarmed self-defense teaches you many essential skills that firearm self-defense will NEVER teach you.
    And of course you will have those skills after you run out of bullets.

  23. Paraphrased from The Bugs “Hey laughing boy, no more bullets, come look. Well what do you know, one more bullet”. Blam

  24. No matter what item is banned, humans will always find another way to accomplish the original purpose!

  25. A lot of the people I work with live in the same vicinity. The other night a neighbor of a friend had a home invasion. The guys casein at night, grabbed some stuff and fled when the occupants woke up and called the cops.

    Funny how many people are asking me about where to get a gun now.

  26. Do they mean no more guns for anyone, or just no more guns for us pesky non governmental officials who are always in the way of their utopian dreams with our pesky voting?

  27. In a world without guns, I probably wouldn’t be alive today. I’m disabled, so I would be no match against someone even half my size and half trained.

  28. I use my glock as a hip weight so I can build body muscle to look nice for all the peaceful people in the world who want to take selfies with me.

  29. Violence doesn’t care what era you live in, humans will kill with or without guns, personally I would prefer a quicker death rather than being hacked to pieces. I have always liked the quote, “God made man, guns made ’em equal.”

Comments are closed.